If This is Quality Programming, Why am I Yawning?

What does that mean - quality programming? And who exactly is deciding that for us? We, the masses, optimistically think good quality, or high quality when we hear that word, yet the phrase is used in relation to television shows that would never be considered Prime Time material. Apparently Prime Time programs are chosen for their entertainment value, not their "quality" which means that laughter (oh, those sitcoms!) or excitement (catch that bad guy, Keifer) don't count when adding up the elements of quality programming. Instead, that term appears to be reserved for the low-budget, high-disinterest documentaries viewers happen upon by accident, or by lack of turning the channel in a timely manner at the end of a more entertaining program, or because "there's nothing on." I once watched a show called Cowboy Poets. It was on the television and I caught bits of it when I walked by (now and then, I'd stop to watch with freakish fascination). Men with dried apple faces and leather necks wore checkered shirts, felt or straw hats, and drawled out poems on the life of a cowboy. Bulls, cows, horses, rodeos, ranches, sun ups and downs, homes on ranges, Betty Lou's apple pie - they didn't miss a stereotypical beat. Other wizened ranchers, the non-poets who knew a good-sounding poem when they heard one, by golly, talked about how they loved the poetry of a true cowboy, the kind who could capture, with eloquence, the nature of a cowboy's life. Personally, "eloquent" is not a word I would have teamed with "cowboy." I have nothing against drawls, or cowboys in particular, or even poetry, but the combination can be a little startling when you're not expecting it. It's nice to know we all have our niches, but I will never be brought to tears by the poetry of a cowboy - at least, not for the same reasons they'd be. I found the program to be mildly boring since drawled poems, in my opinion, sound remarkably like a whole lot of droning. In fact, it sounds sort of like the western version of the Gregorian chant, which I understand some people love, though I will never fathom why. So, freakishly fascinating, sure, but quality programming? That's still debatable. Since that ever-so interesting program aired, I have inadvertently found myself watching other such unexpected "treasures." Did you know that simply by turning on your television, you can learn about the mating rituals of bees, the growth rates of various types of lawn grass, and even learn how a doorknob is made? There are even some home renovating programs available where you can watch paint dry. (Paige Davis and Ty Pennington shows excluded since they definitely have elements of anti-quality entertainment value.) Not long ago, I watched a documentary about Vancouver Island, Canada, and its smaller, surrounding islands. If the year was 1972, and I was a school teacher, I'd have felt as though I hit the mother lode for a grade six geography lesson. The facts were presented (and narrated) with the precision only found in dryly-worded text books and school-board-approved film accompaniments, replete with the deep-voiced announcer (made famous in scratchy reels of the sixties). I was watching the program with wide-eyed psuedo-interest, simply because of my fascination that such a dull documentary could actually be aired. I know from personal experience that Vancouver Island is an incredibly beautiful place, but I'd never have known it had that film been my first introduction to the island. Now, there's a documentary on about the (yawn) amazing life of Jake Penopscott. Never heard of him? Are you serious? Okay, well neither have I. But, apparently, The Great They have deemed this stranger a quality kinda' guy. So, have I been watching quality programming? Good quality - not really. Bad quality - I am leaning in that direction. I'll just stifle this huge yawn and give it some quality thought.